Pages

Friday, August 8, 2014

Be careful what you wish for

Be very careful what you wish for, pro-choicers.

The pro-life movement has long put post-abortive women front and center. The faith-based group Silent No More is the most prominent in this arena, although there are others. These women speak about their experiences and urge people in crisis pregnancies not to make the same mistakes they did.

Let me be abundantly clear. I do believe that abortion should be stigmatized. But women who have abortions should not be. This is exactly the balance that groups like Silent No More strike. Clearly people do not invite Silent No More speakers to pro-life events for the purpose of stigmatizing or demonizing them. The point is to learn from what they have to say.

During my years in the pro-life movement, I've had the privilege of meeting many post-abortive women. Some I call friends: they are courageous, kind, wonderful people. No two have exactly the same abortion story. Some aborted out of financial desperation; some were coerced by abusive boyfriends; some were lied to by their doctors about their baby's development. When I learn that someone has had an abortion, I make no assumptions.

None of that is good news for our loyal opposition. How's their "stigma-busting" project going? Have they had any significant media breakthroughs?

Oh... yikes.

These stories are "blithe and unapologetic" all right. And they do a huge disservice to women. They actually add to the stigma—not merely the stigma on abortion, but the stigma on post-abortive women themselves—by associating post-abortive women with negative character traits that already carry well-deserved stigmas of their own (e.g. selfishness, shallowness, and vanity).

I don't envy the position abortion advocates are in. They have to pretend that they're open to all women's stories when in fact they want something very specific: a woman with no regrets, who is highly knowledgeable about prenatal development (otherwise there's a risk she'll switch sides once educated), but whose abortion wasn't for a sympathetic reason (no "tragic" stories), and who isn't going to come across as a complete sociopath in a Daily Mail article. Such a story is unlikely to attract much interest.

Meanwhile, I'll be standing outside the Supreme Court in January alongside thousands of others, my Florida blood congealing in the cold, as the women of Silent No More bare their souls to the crowd.

130 comments:

"When I learn that someone has had an abortion, I make no assumptions."

Perfect. I find it unfortunate that both sides of the debate consistently use language that implies that abortion is something a pregnant person does to a child (replace "child" with some degrading word for a prenate if a pro-choicer is talking), rather than something that is done to a child (with the focus on the victim, where it belongs) that is directly performed by an abortionist (not a pregnant person) and has many causes.

Yeah, interesting story there. That was the first abortion advocacy site I ever stumbled upon and visited. Needless to say, it caused me to think all pro-choice people are callous and unreasonable. I didn't think otherwise until much later. Really served its purpose and ended that abortion stigma, didn't it?

It is the pregnant person who evaluates her situation and decides whether she will have an abortion induced or try to carry to term. The person inducing the abortion just helps her to do what she wants done. The pregnant person can easily prevent this abortion; the person inducing the abortion can only make her get it induced somewhere else.

Pretending that abortion is done to prenates by Nefarious Third Parties and that the pregnant person is another victim takes away their agency. Frankly, I find the idea that either "people who have abortions induced are too stupid to realize that there are better options" or "people who ask for induced abortions are not important compared to prenates and physicians" to be far more insulting than "people who have abortions induced are selfish".

No, I don't hold that view anymore. I've tried to take more effort to understand pro-choicers and think the vast majority are well-meaning and reasonable (even if I ultimately disagree with them). I'm just saying that I did not get a favourable first impression from that website, as a complete outsider to the abortion debate.

And evidently, I'm not alone. Planned Parenthood dabbled in the whole "I've had an abortion and it was awesome" thing, but had to withdraw their t-shirts from the market. Must not have increased their donations or generated positive publicity.

I believe the "Nefarious Third Parties" you're referring to are 1) abortionists and 2) external pressures, both people who want specifically the child in question to not exist, such as boyfriends; and social pressures against pregnant and parenting people in general; such as the risk of being fired.

If it were a case of infanticide, would you consider it "insulting" to note the roles of the factors in category 2 as contributing to the child's death?

Hard to say. Perhaps because something dies in every successful abortion and (depending on which school of thought you subscribe to) it's akin to child murder, animal euthanasia, or refusing to donate your kidney to someone that needs it.

Or maybe it's because The Patriarchy™ hates female promiscuity and just wants women to be punished for the horrific crime of having sex. I know where I'm placing my chips in 2014 America (which has become much more accepting of homosexuality, premarital sex, and having a baby outside of marriage in recent years but not significantly more pro-abortion), but you've read more Amanda Marcotte than I have.

Yes and no. Many post-abortive women express a strong sense of personal responsibility for their choices. Not being in her shoes, I would guess the ability to accept responsibility while experiencing acceptance and forgiveness from a higher power or friend is an important part of forgiving herself and healing. They are no longer victims. It is important for ourselves as a society to recognize the pressures women who choose abortion experience to alleviate them as much as possible. This can be advocating for policies that make working while pregnant and after Baby is born easier or working to better protect people in abusive relationships to financially supporting moms.

Why not both? That stigma exists because abortion allows women to avoid undeserved stigma against their sexuality doesn't rule out the idea that stigma exists because humans die. And if the stigma against female sexuality is decreasing while stigma against the killing of humans is increasing, that can only mean good things for both women and children.

I wouldn't say there is less stigma. I'm Canadian and abortion is a topic that the media shies away from, and any mention of anything relating to abortion in parliament creates a lot if controversy. Sure, abortion is legal through all nine months for whatever reason here, but that's only because the topic is so controversial that not a single political party wants to touch it.

Support for abortion in Canada has remained steadyhttp://m.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/health/canadians-dont-want-abortion-debate-reignited-poll-finds/article7902348/?service=mobilehttp://wpmedia.news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/na0704-can-values-poll.gif?w=620&h=886

And Canadian pro lifers keep trying to drum up more support for their cause, and they consistently fail.

Intentionally taking a pill to eliminate the child is an abortion. That is not a miscarriage, which is a natural death of the child. I find it deeply insulting, to women devasted by a miscarriage that they couldn't stop, to change semantics and try to redefine abortion as miscarriage. Nothing about abortion supports women, especially those who support abortion in the name of supporting women. Willful ignorance or naïveté, the woman is still responsible for her decisions. Compassion calls us to not be unforgiving of her choices by recognizing the pressures and deception that surround a woman in a crisis pregnancy.

Pregnancy is the condition not wanted. The child has a life that no one has the right to destroy. Forced parenting is legal in our country. If you don't want to give birth, you have the right to not procreate or remove your reproductive organs. There are consequences to taking a human life, legal or not.

A miscarriage is a spontaneous abortion. An abortion is an induced miscarriage. Some women are sad when they miscarry because they think of what night have been. They project their feelings onto the blank slate of the unborn human. Other women are barely affected.

And giving women control of their own fertility is hardly misogynist. The government should not be in the business of forcing reproductive choices on people - be it forced abortion/contraception or through denial of those services.

When you're pregnant, that safe haven is planning for an adoption. When the baby is wanted, it's a baby. When the baby isn't wanted, it's a condition called pregnancy and you support ending the condition...that means killing a baby. You support abortion, which is the termination of a child.

The same poll has two different numbers for supporting abortion on demand (49% and 40%). Seems pretty steady. And judging by the fact that most Canadians don't even know enough about abortion to understand that it's legal throughout all nine months, it's hardly obvious that they wouldn't reconsider upon being presented with the right pro-life arguments.

When it's wanted, it's still a fetus, that is the medical definition. The woman can think it's a baby, that's her perorgative. But wishful thinking doesn't make it so. A ZEF is a human under construction, nothing more.

And as someone45 stated, adoption is an alternative to parenting, not to pregnancy, and simply being 'needy' does not give anything or anyone the right to use the body of another without consent. Period.

I support abortion, which is the right of a woman to control her fertility.

Pregnancy is the condition of carrying a child. Ending that condition ends a child's life. If you have a 2 year old and no longer want him or her, you give up your parental rights and "drop them off at a safe haven" as dude bro said. Women are tougher than you think! They can handle a few months of pregnancy and then drop their "unwanted baby off at a safe haven". Kill the child or find a home? You don't support women, you support killing an unborn child. Women are stronger than the abortion arguememt gives credit.

You're so full of contradiction it's ridiculous. You support abortion which is the killing of a child, whether you want to redefine human development or not. Fertility is under a woman's control. If she doesn't control her fertility, she gets pregnant when she doesn't want to. Then she needs to be responsible for her child as well as her body. It isn't fertility when you're pregnant. Too bad men don't step up and be men, protecting their child and mother of their child. Men suffer after abortion too.

Made to feel guilty??? It's natural to feel something when you take the life of another human being, especially your own child. You support abortion vehemently. There is so much support for abortion where is the shame coming from? Why aren't women embraced by abortion advocates when they regret their abortion? Abortion advocates, like you, are saying their grief is not real. Because of your arguments, women get abortions thinking it's inconsequential, as you state. Reality is that abortion is devastating. The real courage is to stand up and voice your regret, even though those who supported you in getting the abortion will now call you a liar, mentally ill, brainwashed, a sell out. There is no shame in redemption and truth. You don't support women, you support abortion.

All known forms of contraception including tubal ligation have known failure rates. And then there is pregnancy from rape.

Should any woman who wants to control her fertility get a pre-emptive hysterectomy before menarche?

Too bad men don't step up and be men, protecting their child and mother of their child

So if a man ejaculates inside a woman, he owns her body, is that your argument? What do you suggest men do, lock the women they impregnate into a room for a full 9 months, kind of like Ariel Castro? He took charge and forced gestation and birth on women, good for him! What a hero!

Yes. Many women who never felt regret only developed these feelings years later after being told repeatedly that abortion is murder and they were heartless murderers, but if they just accept god into their hearts all will be forgiven.

If a woman doesn't want children, then yes, get rid of the unwanted organ that reproduces human beings or don't have sex until you're in a committed relationship with a man that wants to have children with you. If you know contraception has a failure rate, accept that and be responsible if it fails and you create a child. Abortion is not birth control! Why don't men who don't want children sterilize themselves? Why do you advocate women should artificially sterilize themselves with known carcinogens, for years? We can't separate sex from love, or sex from children without ultimately using and discarding someone in the process. We're meant for better than that. Women deserve better than abortion.

Hysterectomies are pretty unsafe, and are only recommended if non-removal is unhealthier than leaving it in.

Also, the whole point of controlling one's fertility is to plan *when* and *how* many children one will have.

Married women also have abortions, and many of the women who have abortions already have existing children. They are making the decision that is right for them and their families. And some women in committed relationships choose to remain childfree - for life.

Oh, so you also oppose contraception? Your views are very gender essentialist, and they also sound rather religious - sex for procreation only.

I've read about it. Many have related their experiences, about how they didn't feel an guilt for 20+years, but then they joined a church group, and were convinced that they had murdered their child etc etc

Unborn human? You support killing that unborn human. I unapologetically will say that is wrong and should not be an option. Do what you want with your uterus, but it's not okay for you, or anyone else, especially the unborn child, to kill the unborn child. You support abortion, not women.

You always have a choice, doesn't mean it should be supported or legal. Do what you want, but recognize there are consequences to taking a human life, now or in your future. Just because it is legal does not make it right, good or a sound, responsible decision.

If you willingly and knowingly perform the act of reproduction and create a life growing inside you, yes, you are responsible for supporting that human life until birth. Then you can drop it off at a safe haven. You could even induce labor early and get the baby somewhere safe sooner. You aren't responsible for my life, your question has many holes and is not the same scenario. Most people would die to save their child. What's happened in your life that protecting your own child is unthinkable?

What if the woman purposely takes a pill, all on her own, to induce an abortion? What if she sticks a coathanger in her vagina to cause an infection, which will then result in a miscarriage? Should she be jailed for murder?

The zef has no right to use the woman's body and it has no "human rights". An abortion would not have "dire consequences" for me. To me forced birth and forced pregnancy would have FAR worse consequences than an abortion.

I already answered your question. You're a very misguided and confused individual. You and others like you that lie to women and say abortion is inconsequential, their only option or their "right" mislead so many. You've obviously bought into the deception and brainwashing. Should you be jailed as an accessory to murder?

The child has no rights because 9 men legally took the unborn human beings rights away. You continue that tragedy by dehumanizing the unborn born with your language. How do you conclude that it is acceptable for a government body to arbitrarily determine the rights of one human over another? Can you think of any situations where denying our inalienable human rights to a vulnerable group of people is wrong? Human is human. Person is person. If you don't want children, don't create them.

I never denied that, though the extent to which they do is questionable (given that it changes by nearly 10 points depending on how you ask the question).

Zygotic personhood is a no-go in Canada. People who believe in personhood for zygotes are a minority, even in the USA

The same was true for same-sex marriage for the longest time, but public opinion eventually changed and it's not a "no-go" even in the USA.

even in extreme PL states like MS.

I don't think you can go from "Mississippi voted against a pro-life ballot measure" to "Mississippians want abortion to be legal". The side supporting the status quo, liberals, pro-choicers, and the side with the most money to spend on attack ads historically have had an advantage in ballot measures. But that doesn't mean the item on the ballot is unpopular in substance. Often, it takes a few tries to pass it successfully.

And yeah, it's no surprise that American pro-lifers and religionists are branching out, bringing their hate to the rest of the world.

Call it what you like (religionists? lol). But the lesson is that the pro-life movement has not invested much in changing laws or public opinion in Europe until now, not that the pro-life cause is hopeless because Europe is more accepting of female sexuality than America is.

These are the same people who support death for gays in Uganda.

That would be an ad hominem argument. Even so, I'm not aware of anyone mentioned in the report that openly supports Uganda's law.

The law should not be based on beliefs I agree, it should be based on science.

A distinctly separate human life begins biologically from the moment of fertilization. That new life is a human being at the very first stages of development. To say that this life is not valuable simply because of his or her age is discrimination based on age, stage of development, or location.

WTF, "Prenates" aren't nefarious little beings that knowingly lodge inside your body and attempt to purposely exploit you, YOU created it. And you are no better by forcing your will on someone else's body. Pregnancy is nature.

So it's ok to destroy someone else's body without consent if it's a baby..but you expect a fetus to know that it's inside someone "without consent"--how the F is a prenate supposed to ask for "consent" to be inside a woman's uterus when it doesn't know what's going on?

Support for RvW has remained pretty steady. And no, if personhood rights for zygotes can't make it an *extreme* PL stronghold like MS it won't make it anywhere. Only a tiny minority of PL'ers believe that zygotes are rational persons.

Can you think of any situations where denying our inalienable human rights to a vulnerable group of people is wrong?

Yeah. Thousands of children die every year because they are denied body parts.

Have you given up your bone marrow yet to save the life of a child? How about a piece of your liver? Why should YOUR right to your body parts come before that of a dying 5 year old who is just as innocent as a zygote?

I'm not saying people don't feel shame for these things, but to suggest that an adult woman is so weak and powerless to follow through with what she thinks is right and wrong? A child is one thing, but an adult woman who goes from not feeling anything to feeling regret? That can't be because she's come to new knowledge or she stopped rationalizing something that she realized didn't fit with the morals she developed over a lifetime? Please. Stop infantizing us.

The sad thing is, I know of the stories you are talking about. And often, it's a woman who buried her regret about taking a life, which is precisely what makes her vulnerable to the testicles of emotionally predatory evangelists.

In fact, I do think that one mistake the PC side has made is to concentrate more on logical arguments and science vs. go for the emotional angle. The PL side is very very good at manipulating emotions. Then again, conservatives generally are, just look at Fox News.

Well no wonder you are making blanket statements about women who come to regret their abortion, you are just the type of person who loves blanket statements!Derp. Progressive atheist here. Pro-life because of the science of embryology - i.e. understanding at what point we begin, not because bean-sized human-beings give me the feels.

Women are not monolithic, and neither are post-abortive women, and neither are post-abortive women who come to regret their abortions. I personally know women who have come to regret their abortions (some of them are still technically pro-choice, although their version of pro-choice is hardly on demand without apology). I can assure you, she's an atheist as well, and she doesn't feel bad because some bad ole priest told her to feel bad. She feels bad because she later birthed a child by the same man and has come to understand that there isn't much difference between the one she kept and the one she aborted (and the fact that it was her mother who pressured her to abort). And no, before you accuse me of pressuring her, I didn't even talk to her about this, I didn't even know she had had an abortion, or felt bad about it until years after her daughter was born.

But really, pro-choicers never appeal to emotion? are you sure you want to go with that? What was the Emily Letts video then, if not an appeal to emotion? Certainly wasn't scientific. Cognitive dissonance indeed is strong with you.

Hysterectomies are contraindicated for birth control purposes. Gynos typically only remove ovaries and/or uterii in cases of disease or disorder. Tubal ligation is the go-to method for permanent birth control.

Unfortunately, many gynos will not perform voluntary sterilization for women who are nulliparous and only if a woman has an 'acceptable number' of children. 'Acceptable,' of course, being whatever number the individual gyno decrees.

Those who have chosen to be childfree should face no reproductive prejudice in obtaining completely voluntary sterilization.

Additionally, There's every reason to believe that a woman desiring nothing more than a tubal ligation would not wish to undergo the early menopause that removal of healthy ovaries would entail. She would also not wish to sacrifice the structural integrity of her other organs by removal of the uterus.

With these considerations in mind, one can easily see why hysterectomy is a poor birth control method versus the entirely appropriate tubal ligation.

Support for Roe v. Wade drops sharply as soon as poll respondents are told that, rather than desegregating schools or protecting the environment, Roe v. Wade actually legalized abortion on demand throughout all nine months of pregnancy in all fifty states.

From what I've read, in cultures where infanticide is prevalent, usually it's because there is no birth control, no abortion, and no social safety net, and the people who abandon their children believe that they won't be able to care for them and their existing children.

Very few parents actually want to kill their children. People who commit infanticide anyway usually have what they think are compelling reasons to do so. Of course they have reasons. That's my whole point.

If someone actually cannot feed both her new baby, herself, and her older children, then the correct way to prevent infanticide is not to force her to keep the baby. That just means that someone (possibly several someones) will starve to death. The best response is a welfare state, and without that the least bad response is for someone to die quickly.

Abortion in our society isn't usually a life-or-life decision, like infanticide in a family that's starving--but people usually have reasons, and the best way to prevent induced abortions is to address those reasons. She'll be fired if she gets pregnant? The right answer is FMLA, not forcing her to remain pregnant and get fired for it. She can't pay both daycare and rent? The right answer is subsidized daycare, not forcing her to have a baby and then leave her child at a park because she can't afford proper daycare.

Going back to your infanticide example: there are good external reasons for infanticide, such as "I won't be able to feed my family if it gets any bigger." There are bad external reasons for infanticide, such as "My boyfriend doesn't want to be a father." There are entirely selfish reasons for infanticide. The right response to the selfish reasons, I guess, is to criminalize infanticide, although I don't really think that the government is justified in doing so unless it also gives new parents the option not to raise unwanted children. The correct response to bad reasons may well be to criminalize infanticide so that a woman who doesn't want to kill her child can tell her partner "Sorry, that's illegal", in the same way that it's good for me as a teacher to be able to tell parents, "Sorry, FERPA means that I am not allowed to discuss your child's grades with you." But the correct response to good reasons is to address those reasons, not to criminalize infanticide and expect the family's needs to materialize.

Short version: People have reasons, good, bad and selfish, to induce abortion or commit infanticide. If you ignore the selfish reasons, then criminalizing this behavior only helps people who (a) have bad reasons and need help saying, "No, that's a bad reason, I don't want to commit infanticide for that," and (b) have been deluded into thinking that a bad reason is a good one. It ignores the people who evaluate their situation and correctly conclude that abortion or infanticide is the best way out.

People who want abortions induced have reasons that are either selfish, spineless, stupid, or right. Admitting those reasons, no, isn't insulting. But if you criminalize abortion, that's tantamount to a statement that no one who wants an abortion is right. And if you studiously avoid the "selfish" label, then you're left with the claim that people who think they want to induce abortion are either stupid or spineless, both of which, sorry, are pretty insulting.

So what about identical twins? Nicholas Brendon and Kelly Donovan's distinctly separate lives began days after fertilization. Would it have been okay to kill the blastocyst that gave rise to them before it split, since that wasn't the precursor of a full human life? Was its act of splitting in two a tragedy comparable to an abortion, since it ended that "distinctly separate human life"?

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for andcertain of what we do not see. (New International Version-1984)Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of thing hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. (New American Standard Bible)Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (King James Version)

I have faith that Jesus is the Son of God. I have faith that He performed miracles. I have faith that Jesus was resurrected from the grave by God the Father. I believe this because I have faith that the historical record of the Bible is accurate, yet I cannot prove it. There are no living eyewitness to confirm that Jesus was who He said He was or that He was resurrected from the dead, I accept it by faith, I believe it, however, I cannot prove it.

Atheists do not believe the fact that Jesus was the Son of God or that there even is a God, they cannot prove their unbelief, they accept it by faith.

Romans 8:24 For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope, for who hopes for what he already sees?(NASB)

We have hope we have been saved, but we hope because of faith. We cannot prove we have been saved. We believe that we have been save because we believe, by faith, that the Bible is accurate and trustworthy.

John 20:27-31 Then He said to Thomas, "Reach here with you finger, see My hands and put them into my side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing." 28 Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!'29 Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed." ...... (NASB)

Thomas had proof that Jesus was resurrected from the grave. Men today cannot prove the resurrection of Jesus from the grave, they accept it by faith.

There were more than five hundred brethren, including the apostles, who saw Jesus alive after He faced death on the cross. They were eyewitnesses, they had proof of the resurrection of Jesus. (1 Corinthians 15:3-7)

Those of us alive today have to have FAITH that the Biblical accounts of Jesus and His resurrection are true. We cannot prove they are true. NO ONE IS ALIVE TODAY WHO WAS AN EYEWITNESS TO THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS.

FAITH IS BELIEVING SOMETHING YOU CANNOT PROVE!

NOTE: Atheists believe, by faith, that God does not exists, but they cannot prove it.

One human life was present at fertilization and two human lives were present after the point were the egg separates into two human beings. Monozygotic twins are two distinct and separate individuals from that point, however that does not mean that one life was not present from the moment of fertilization.

The child before birth has an unique human genome, this child has the active natural potency for conscious thought and this individual is as human as a human at a later stage of development.

It is discrimination based on age or stage of development when we assert that a human life is less valuable because he or she is not capable of something that at her/his stage of development human beings are never capable of doing.

It is obvious that a human life is present after recombination, when prior to that point there were two human lives present. There is no scientific conscious on what occurs in either twinning or recombination, however it is obvious that both before and after each process takes place human lives are present. The human life(lives) is(are) valuable and should be legally protected just like every other human life.

A heart attack is an induced suicide by this logic and murder doesn't even exist. You are leaving out how much human will is a key factor in how we view everything. Forcing a woman to have her child with which she is pregnant isn't like any other scenario because no matter how many ways you want to think a fetus is different from a person, the core element of humanity is there. It is a nascent homo sapien sapien. Don't forget these things.You make an ass of yourself when you leave out key details like these.

Also, most people here aren't interested at all in how the government should implement strategies of contraception. Some here even may be more active than you in being opposed to such intervention. It is how I perceive murder that makes me against abortion. I believe abortion is in fact a detriment for the progression of women's rights. It is completely patriarchal in its nature.

It is biologically inaccurate to state that a developing human child is a "potential human life" as this child possesses all of the characteristics of life of a living creature and has human DNA therefore this life is not a "potential" human life but an actual human life. Therefore it is discriminatory to deny this child's right to life based on her/his age.

Calling a pregnancy unwanted can be accurate, but that does not make the child unwanted.

When it is claimed that pregnancy is "gestational slavery" it is indicated that women are inferior to men because only women can bear children, and abortion makes women equal to men by interrupting the natural biological process of gestation, by ending the life of the unborn child.

Bearing children does not make women less valuable in any way. On the contrary possessing the ability to give birth to children is necessary for the survival of the human species.

If an act of identical twinning occurs, should we then mourn the loss of the one distinct human life that existed before the twinning? Or is the loss of this life okay because it has given rise to two new ones?

Therefore it is discriminatory to deny this child's right to life based on her/his age.

Nothing to do with age. A single cell fails to qualify as a person. Genetic blueprints are not people.

When it is claimed that pregnancy is "gestational slavery" it is indicated that women are inferior to men because only women can bear children

Someone45 is correct, because forcing someone to labour on behalf of another, at great risk to their life and health, without remuneration, is indeed a form of slavery.

Bearing children does not make women less valuable in any way.

Except it does. In every country where women are relegated to housekeeping and childbearing they are also seen as inferior. They are dependent on men, and due to this, they are automatically viewed as inferior, and even worthless, compared to what a man can contribute to the family. Contraception and abortion free women from being stuck in an endless cycle of childbearing. Women can exercise their free will if they are not forced to forfeit their bodily autonomy every time they have sex. You should not lose your right to self-determination should you choose to engage in sexual activity.

On the contrary possessing the ability to give birth to children is necessary for the survival of the human species.

And enough people choose to have children that the survival of the human species is not something anyone need worry about. In fact, too many humans hurts the survival of the species, because once we overload the carrying capacity of our environment, and pollute that environment, we kill ourselves.

An 18 year old is a complete and fully formed human individual. Everything that will ever be there - organs, body parts, is already there.

Can't say that about an unborn human - which is the whole point of gestation - they can't survive without the woman's body because they don't have a functioning body. Or brain. Unborn humans are under construction, and that construction may never result in a live, autonomous infant.